Kerry's speech calling for and suggesting an exit strategy from Iraq

[Skyhunter]

What is this?

A Democrat with an idea.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward
This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.
To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.
The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.
The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.
It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.
In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Apparently Republicans have ideas too.

Bush: "Let's invade Iraq. It'll be great. Everyone'll love it."

 

[Skyhunter]

Apparently Republicans have ideas too.
Bush: "Let's invade Iraq. It'll be great. Everyone'll love it."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Anttech]

Wow counds like he is actually thinking about the well fair of the US, and Iraq. Good on him!

 

[Skyhunter]

Wow counds like he is actually thinking about the well fair of the US, and Iraq. Good on him!

I had misgivings about John Kerry, but I always thought he would be far more capable of resolving the Iraq mess than Bush.

I don't believe we can reshape the ME for the better. Nor do I believe we have the right.

On a side note.

I wonder what kind of flack Kerry would have gotten for Katrina, if he had been elected?

 

[Polly]

*feeling an urge to blend in*

I think I finally understand why Kelly failed to curry favour with the Americans, he is too intellectual (!). Any way Bush is nice in his own way as well, bringing every religiosity, banality, cruelty, hypocrisy, stupidity that America has to offer to the fore and to a head too.

The rest of the world would have otherwise been duped for some more years if it were not for him.

 

[Anttech]

specific and measurable goals.

This is exactly what Bushco don't want to do.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Wow counds like he is actually thinking about the well fair of the US, and Iraq. Good on him!

In all fairness, it's a lot easier to stand up and say what he did when you've LOST the election. And staging a pull-out of Iraq is easier to say than do.

I think there's a better way to pull out of Iraq, and this is going to sound anti-American but it's not at all. Pull out the American troops and send in more troops from other countries.

Think about it.

Who gets all the blame for the mess in Iraq despite the fact they were only one of the members of the coalition, and one of two countries pushing strong for the invasion in the first place?

Which country are those who use Iraq as a platform for anti-western activities most preoccupied with?

Which country's troops come under the most criticism for brutality (e.g. torture), ineptitude (e.g. friendly fire), misconduct (e.g. bombing where they shouldn't) and being ill-disposed (e.g. climate problems)?

America is a symbol for anti-western and anti-coalition sentiment, and the American troops have been a source of discontentment for Iraqis and non-American soldiers alike since the beginning of the war. I think their very presence ironically makes them pulling out more difficult.

Like I said, that's not an anti-American sentiment. Most of those reasons are entirely due to America being the most powerful country in the coalition, and so naturally deemed the most responsible for the foul situation.

 

[Anttech]

I think there's a better way to pull out of Iraq, and this is going to sound anti-American but it's not at all. Pull out the American troops and send in more troops from other countries.

Slight problem there, other countries don't want to go in...

In all fairness, it's a lot easier to stand up and say what he did when you've LOST the election. And staging a pull-out of Iraq is easier to say than do.

true, I don't think he is denying that, but I don't see any Plans from the administration do you?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Slight problem there, other countries don't want to go in...

True enough. Those countries that supported the coalition, though, have a responsibility to rebuild Iraq. If the best option is a US-free option, and I believe it is for the reasons I stated, then they have a duty to implement it.

Of course, the more obvious problem is one of numbers.

true, I don't think he is denying that, but I don't see any Plans from the administration do you?

That's my point. It's easy to state plans and intentions when you don't have to do anything about it. Governments get held to plans, so it's no wonder, given the unpredictability of the situation, that the Bush administration keeps it vague.

On the other hand, it could be they don't even HAVE a plan, which is consistent with the lack of forward-planning they've demonstrated so far.

Regardless, politicians say things when they're not in power they wouldn't necessarily do if they were in power. I don't see the point in applauding someone for an orotund pronouncement of the way forward when they have no capacity to deliver.

I'm not saying don't support his argument; I'm just saying it's hardly surprising the opposition have vocal ideas about how to get out of Iraq.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think there's a better way to pull out of Iraq, and this is going to sound anti-American but it's not at all. Pull out the American troops and send in more troops from other countries.

When the American people reelected Bush they closed that option.

There is little incentive for other nations to help out. With America in charge, and Bushco in charge of America, the situation is only going to get worse.

Why would any other nation want to get involved in a lose lose situation?

 

[Anttech]

Regardless, politicians say things when they're not in power they wouldn't necessarily do if they were in power. I don't see the point in applauding someone for an orotund pronouncement of the way forward when they have no capacity to deliver.

I aggree, but by publically stating what he just did he is creating more public presure on the government to do what is needed, and is being asked for, which is a good thing...

 

[Skyhunter]

I aggree, but by publically stating what he just did he is creating more public presure on the government to do what is needed, and is being asked for, which is a good thing...

Which as a Senator in the minority party is one of few avenues left.

This speech is in line with what he was saying during the campaign. Maybe you missed it amid all the coverage of the swift boat smear campaign.

[edit]Not directed at you you Anttech, just in general.[/edit]

 

[pattylou]

Yeah, I remember the plan for withdrawal, from the campaign. 4000 troops would start coming home last January.

And Skyhunter, I don't know that:

...the American people reelected Bush ...

is an accurate representation of what happened.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I had misgivings about John Kerry, but I always thought he would be far more capable of resolving the Iraq mess than Bush.
I don't believe we can reshape the ME for the better. Nor do I believe we have the right.
On a side note.
I wonder what kind of flack Kerry would have gotten for Katrina, if he had been elected?

That would depend on if he was to have appointed someone unqualifed to run FEMA too, wouldn't it?

 

[Skyhunter]

And Skyhunter, I don't know that: is an accurate representation of what happened.

I am not convinced either. But it is not pertinent to the point. He is the President and enough people did vote for him that to other nations the American people are viewed as supportive of his policies.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In all fairness, it's a lot easier to stand up and say what he did when you've LOST the election. And staging a pull-out of Iraq is easier to say than do.
I think there's a better way to pull out of Iraq, and this is going to sound anti-American but it's not at all. Pull out the American troops and send in more troops from other countries.
Think about it.

I have.

What he mentioned in the end was the criticism levelled at them from the end of the war onwards.

Pull out immediately and let them get on with it ...

When Saddam fell, there were no terrorist in Iraq.

This would not have been abandoment had they invited the UN to take over but ... well, they wanted all the lucrative contract for themselves.

 

[pattylou]

Originally Posted by Skyhunter
I had misgivings about John Kerry, but I always thought he would be far more capable of resolving the Iraq mess than Bush.
I don't believe we can reshape the ME for the better. Nor do I believe we have the right.
On a side note.
I wonder what kind of flack Kerry would have gotten for Katrina, if he had been elected?

That would depend on if he was to have appointed someone unqualifed to run FEMA too, wouldn't it?

Well, the man we elected in 2000 did *this* in the aftermath of Katrina:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_al_gore_katrina.htm

Excerpt:

True. According to press accounts, former vice-president Al Gore arranged and at least partially paid for the airlift evacuation of 270 patients from Charity Hospital in New Orleans on September 3 and 4, 2005 after being notified of desperate conditions at the facility by Dr. David Kline, a neurosurgeon who once treated Gore's son after an automobile accident. The first group of 140 patients was transferred to Knoxville, Tennessee, while the second group, numbering 130, was airlifted to Chatanooga.

Gore himself has not spoken publicly of these actions to date.

I think this stands in stark contrast to what Bush did(n't do).

 

[pattylou]

I am not convinced either. But it is not pertinent to the point. He is the President and enough people did vote for him that to other nations the American people are viewed as supportive of his policies.

True, it's not pertinent to the point. I am not trying to derail the thread.

But, I believe phrasing is important - Look how many comments from overseas relate to ideas like "How can the American people have elected this man?":grumpy:

In other words, the american people are being blamed for something that they may not have done.

There's no doubt that roughly half the population voted for Bush. But the entire population gets painted with the same brush, and had Kerry been sworn in, even though roughly half the populatioon had voted for Bush, the comments from overseas would be more along the lines of "Americans have come to their senses."

And it's ironic, because the two descriptions are very different, but the votes would have been just about the same.

Thankfully, most people are smart enough that if they look at the numbers they realize that half of us were very opposed to this person.

This is all pure opinion on my part, based on sweeping comments I have seen made by non-Americans since last November.

I am not saying Kerry won. I am saying exactly what I said in the previous post: I don't know that "the american people reelected bush" is an accurate comment.

 

[russ_watters]

I read the section entitled "The Kerry Plan" and from what I can see, it only takes us through the end of December and the removal of 20,000 troops. What of the other half a million (guess) troops?

Not much of a plan. (anyone surprised?)

 

[Skyhunter]

I read the section entitled "The Kerry Plan" and from what I can see, it only takes us through the end of December and the removal of 20,000 troops. What of the other half a million (guess) troops?
Not much of a plan. (anyone surprised?)

Thank you Russ for so elequently emphasizing my point in an earlier post. Conservatives ask for solutions from Democrats for the sole purpose of attacking them. Bi-partisanship does not have to be a form of date rape.

To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

You take this statement, and turn it into a strawman.

I expect better arguments from you.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you Russ for so elequently emphasizing my point in an earlier post. Conservatives ask for solutions from Democrats for the sole purpose of attacking them. Bi-partisanship does not have to be a form of date rape.

While I have asked for solutions in the past, this particular solution was unsolicited. Now, I would be more than happy to let Kerry die in peace, but he chooses not to. Beyond that, it really is the Democrats who keep bringing this issue up, not Republicans (case-in-point, this thread).

You take this statement, and turn it into a strawman.

This statement?:

At the first benchmark...

Skyhunter, he comes right out and says that it's an incomplete plan.

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter, he comes right out and says that it's an incomplete plan.

Exactly, so why are you treating it like it is with your argument?

Are you suggesting that we do not need an exit strategy from Iraq?

[edit]Sorry, I should have said "criticism" not "argument".

 

[Art]

Exactly, so why are you treating it like it is with your argument?
Are you suggesting that we do not need an exit strategy from Iraq?
[edit]Sorry, I should have said "criticism" not "argument".

Kerry's plan sounds very much like what the British are now doing. They are handing over provinces one by one to full Iraqi control and forcing the Iraqis to take on the responsibility for maintaining law and order.

As each province is handed over the British plan is to then bring home those troops that had patrolled it.

The only reason I can think of why the US is not doing the same is because they want to continue to exert influence over the new Iraqi gov't for some 'unknown' reason.

 

[pattylou]

Is Britain reducing troop strength there? Wow!

 

[Art]

Is Britain reducing troop strength there? Wow!

Although Blair won't give an exact timeline his defence minister John Reid has strongly hinted that Britain will begin to pull out troops starting next May. He has also said that troops freed up will not be redeployed to the US sectors of control.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1577937,00.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Although Blair won't give an exact timeline his defence minister John Reid has strongly hinted that Britain will begin to pull out troops starting next May. He has also said that troops freed up will not be redeployed to the US sectors of control.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1577937,00.html

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003

October is almost over.

Has the plan been presented to the Iraqi Parliament yet?

 

[Art]

October is almost over.
Has the plan been presented to the Iraqi Parliament yet?

Not that I'm aware of. The timing of the news conference by John Reid, (just prior to the annual Labour Party conference means it might just have been a ruse to offset anti-war statements by party members but seeing as how it makes sense and was backed up by comments made to Japan I think this is the route they will take.
The constitutional ballot was delayed by a couple of weeks so perhaps that has consequently pushed the timing back. If the US are also tied into the plan I imagine the details of it will be released to the US public at the most advantageous political time.

 

[Moonbear]

It's what he's been saying all along...we need "specific and measurable goals." This is true enough, but the problem is he hasn't suggested any, nobody has!

 

[Skyhunter]

It's what he's been saying all along...we need "specific and measurable goals." This is true enough, but the problem is he hasn't suggested any, nobody has!

Isn't it the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to define the goals?

I think Kerry is correct in suggesting a general strategy, without specifics. Bush has all the information, so he should outline the specifics, goals, and benchmarks. Kerry is doing his job as a Senator of the minority party by trying to bring the issue to the forefront.

I might be wrong about this but I believe Kerry has been very focused and involved with trying to get us out of Iraq. I seem to remember him spending a considerable amount of time in Iraq during the drafting of the constitution.

 

[GENIERE]

It's what he's been saying all along...we need "specific and measurable goals." This is true enough, but the problem is he hasn't suggested any, nobody has!

Not true, the President defined the goals before Saddam was attacked. Primary reasons were:

Prevent Saddams use of WMD
Regime change
Democratization

The first proved premature, the latter are works in progress.
The timetable for a military pullout is "as long as it takes".


.

 

[Polly]

True, it's not pertinent to the point. I am not trying to derail the thread.
But, I believe phrasing is important - Look how many comments from overseas relate to ideas like "How can the American people have elected this man?":grumpy:
In other words, the american people are being blamed for something that they may not have done.
There's no doubt that roughly half the population voted for Bush. But the entire population gets painted with the same brush, and had Kerry been sworn in, even though roughly half the populatioon had voted for Bush, the comments from overseas would be more along the lines of "Americans have come to their senses."
And it's ironic, because the two descriptions are very different, but the votes would have been just about the same.
Thankfully, most people are smart enough that if they look at the numbers they realize that half of us were very opposed to this person.
This is all pure opinion on my part, based on sweeping comments I have seen made by non-Americans since last November.
I am not saying Kerry won. I am saying exactly what I said in the previous post: I don't know that "the american people reelected bush" is an accurate comment.

But Bush was re-elected. And by whom if not the American people? He has been duly elected and formally authorised to represent the US of A and ALL its people (to wage war and "defend the Constitution" I am sure). The margin he won by is neither here nor there and like it or not, vis-a-vis the international community, all American people are bound by his action or inaction, feasance or misfeasance vicariously.

Not my war? Did the Shiites have the luxury to claim "Sadam not my president, therefore don't shock and awe me"?

 

[Skyhunter]

Not true, the President defined the goals before Saddam was attacked. Primary reasons were:
Prevent Saddams use of WMD
Regime change
Democratization
The first proved premature, the latter are works in progress.
The timetable for a military pullout is "as long as it takes".
.

The first proved to be a lie.

And they have done as good a job with the second two as they did with Katrina.

Maybe getting out is what it takes.

 

[pattylou]

But Bush was re-elected. And by whom if not the American people? He has been duly elected and formally authorised to represent the US of A and ALL its people (to wage war and "defend the Constitution" I am sure). The margin he won by is neither here nor there and like it or not, vis-a-vis the international community, all American people are bound by his action or inaction, feasance or misfeasance vicariously.
Not my war? Did the Shiites have the luxury to claim "Sadam not my president, therefore don't shock and awe me"?

If he got into the white house through fraud, then it is wrong to hold the American people responsible.

But you have illustrated my point most nicely. Thank you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The first proved to be a lie.
And they have done as good a job with the second two as they did with Katrina.
Maybe getting out is what it takes.

Wasn't 'leaving Vietnam' given the same list of excuses for so many years before they actually pulled out?

If America is there for 'as long as it takes', Nam lasted for about a decade.


Are we going to be viewing pictures of the Halliburton Gang getting on a Huey from the top of their corporate headquarters moments before their new Ayatola declares an Islamic republic in about 7 years?

Really, with the debt mounting as it is and the spiral downwards of enlistees, just how long before the government destroys the economy, armed forces ... and ... well, I was going to say credibility but I think they lost that a couple of years ago.